User talk:Peter Chastain/Archive 1

AMBRA College
Thank you for the insights. Hopefully wiki page was protected as administrator noticed disparaging discussion tone.

The main problems in the article are irrelevance and disparaging.

For example, it is clear that institution has not sought for accreditation, so it is not necessary to list all accrediting agencies writing: it is not accredited by agency 1, it is not accredited by agency 2, it is not accredited by agency 3, and so one.

There is no need to say the diploma has no validity in Brazil. The same apply to any American institutions as Harvard and Stanford. Francisco.ambra (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I agree with every word of your proposal at sandbox. I think it is also worthy to record the recent issues of AMBRA with Brazilian justice with the following redaction:


 * Recently, at request of the federal Brazilian District Attorney of Manaus, a court order decreed the ceasing of their opperations in Brazil.

I would put Brazilian Law International College in the heading, as it is also known by this name. If others unaccredited institutions, such as the Pensacola Christian College, are under the Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning, why AMBRA can't be?--Muluceps Sujam (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apostolos Santas
Hi and thanks for the very useful info. I am new to wikipedia so I am still learning the editing tools. You are right about the greek entry. Lakis is short for Apostolos, as well as other names. It is very commonly used. I have to do a google search to find out which of the two (Lakis or his full name Apostolos) he uses the most. I also saw that he also uses "Apostolis", a more casual form of Apostolos. I will add more content too, over the next few days. There is a lot of material in Greek, will try to transfer the more significant parts to the english entry. Overall, a neglected but worthy subject. Thanks SpectacularMisfit 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectacularMisfit (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Environment
Hi Peter, I notice you are doing some work on soil conditioners and you are interested in the Environment. If you have time to participate I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Environment. I am seeking to get more people involved and have a more dynamic community. --Alex 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Soil inoculant
As you suggested, I've moved the contents of the Soil innoculant (sic) article to a new article called Soil inoculant. I've made the old page redirect to the corrected one, and corrected all incoming links.

Your comment said you would like to link to it when it was done, so I thought I'd leave a note to give you the go-ahead :)

Euchiasmus 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Clade types revised 20090306.svg


Thank you for uploading File:Clade types revised 20090306.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You just need to state who the original author was, and license it under the same license. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Minor, American writer
Hello, I noticed that you added Kyle Minor to the minor disambiguation page. I took it upon myself to create the article. Can you help to improve upon it? Geology1001 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates and transclusion etc
Hiya,

Unfortunately, during the netsplit, it looks like we lost contact.

Regarding transclusion and templates, I've made an extremely simple example in your userspace, which might help a bit.

Take a look at User:Peter_Chastain/test-transclusion, which transcludes User:Peter_Chastain/test-template, and uses a parameter. Have a play around with it.

Also, as I said on IRC, try editing a test page, and put this;

This is a substitution:

This is a transclusion:

After you save it, edit the page, and notice that the part was replaced by the actual number at the time you hit "save", and thus will never change - whilst the transcluded one will change in value each time you refresh the page.

I hope this helps; please feel free to contact me any time with any questions. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  06:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD procedures
in general, as for AfD-procedures (which are lengthy and can take a while...), the procedure is here. Just follow the 3 steps. Cheers! Seb az86556 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Point well taken. you wanna do the honors then? :) you seem better at arguing the point. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. gave my vote. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish-American organized crime: causes
I already tried to address your questions in the article. Improvements are always welcome, but I hope you come up with better arguments than "If I had to make a guess, I would say that dislocation from the old communities and their institutions, and a historical reluctance to turn in fellow Jews to civil authorities might have played a bigger role than did poverty, but that is just a guess." - DonCalo (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the novocaines
hey peter, i am extremely new to this so that it totally fine for you to change that.

thanks!

the novocaines
hey peter, i am extremely new to this so that it totally fine for you to change that.

thanks! - LocalLad28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locallad28 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing Multi-diagnostic Mental Health Screen for Primary Care Physicians
Peter: Thanks for the note. I am not the person who posted the page initially. So my reading of the tag that was there was that I should take down the notice once the page was edited. Was that incorrect? I made significant edits and additions to the article, and sourced the key points; I also re-wrote it in the Wiki-style. Is there still an issue with it? Please let me know, or feel free to repost the tag as is appropriate. But, again, from my reading of it, I thought it was OK now. Thanks and best.

Blogreader (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See: Multi-diagnostic_Mental_Health_Screen_for_Primary_Care_Physicians\

---

Peter: I agree with you. Can you change it to "Mental health screening by primary care physicians" ? Thanks. --Blogreader (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Do you know where the advertisement tag just came from? A bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogreader (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Help on reviewing my draft
Hi! Peter, thank you for suggestions on how to keep my RHUB article. Following your suggestions, I have created a draft at User:Jmao1. Your feedback is much appreciated.

Jmao1 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Some neutral input on George Lee (British politician)?
Hi Peter. When I looked up George Lee (British politician) I was astonished to find that the article had been deleted. Looking at the cache it seemed clear why: it was written rather like a press release and did not give any clear grounds for notability. George has been the "First Chinese X" for a large number of Xs and if elected he would be the First Chinese MP. There have also been a number of articles about him since the deltion decision. However I know George and should not make any controvesial edits about him. I thought it would be non-controversial to bring it back into userspace, improve it, and then when another editor had contribted I thought WP:Be Bold and put it back into mainspace. But another editor has objected, so I should step back and ask an objective 3rd party to look at it, if you could be so kind? Many thanks. NBeale (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

American College of Brazilian Studies
I'm happy to unprotect if you'd like to edit it. If you could stick to secondary sources as far as possible, that would be safest&mdash;assuming there are any, of course. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion here about whether I should delete the page. It was created as an attack page, and there seem to be no secondary sources, so I can delete it if there are no objections from the people who've edited it, not counting the account that created it. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, I've gone ahead and deleted it as an article created as an attack page with no secondary sources, but if at any point now or in the future you want to develop it, please let me know and I'll undelete it for you. Or of course you can simply re-create it. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ThankS. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discovery Gospel Choir
Rather than remove the speedy deletion tag with no improvment to the article. Please add a hangon tag and explain the sources you've found on the talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Tuesday
If you don't mind, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on 9/11-related articles for moves or renamings of the sort that Popecreator was doing. He's a blocked sock of, who used to fool around on Australia-New Zealand-related topics, but has now branched out. I've move-protected Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Legal issues related to the September 11 attacks, but history indicates he'll be back.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does he have some agenda for preferring "Holy Tuesday"? I had never heard of the term but found it in the NYT article, so I was making my change to the article at the same time you were making yours. If there is a reason not to include the term, I would not mind reverting my change. Thanks for the heads-up. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to its inclusion necessarily, although I question how widely-disseminated the term is, and whether it wasn't invented after the fact. My point is the same as yours - that's it's not well-known, and that Popecreator/Tasbian was moving articles to the new name, which obviously wasn't going to be good. My experience with persistent socks is that they're, well, persistent, so we can expect more attempts to move articles to what they believe should be the proper name.  Acroterion  (talk)  13:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

D.N.C
I saw the corporation article; I turned it into a redirect to Democratic National Committee after it was deleted. Think that works? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, never mind - I see you got caught in the perfect storm of speediness that was that deletion. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and then we were both editing this talk page :) Anyway, I agree with your redirect. Grazie. Peter Chastain (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted


Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)